The Great Abortion Debate

[Anonymous]

In my observations of this great debate of our time, I am beginning to feel ambivalent and dispassionate about the issue. The main reason for my ambivalence and neglect of politics is that I find that a resolution is not possible or very difficult to accomplish. In order to examine why, let's take a look at the nature of the positions.

First of all, the debate is not logically parallel. One side argues for the protection of the sanctity of life of the fetus or unborn baby, not suppressing the right to choose abortion. The other side argues for the freedom to choose to have an abortion, not terminating the life of the unwanted baby. The opposing groups also differ in terms of how they identify themselves: one is pro-life and the other is pro-choice. They may attack each other all they want, but if they ever want to resolve this issue, they must realize that this "debate" is not about a mere for/against position, but that it involves a complete worldview difference with a substantial difference in focus.

Second, I speculate that both sides are not purely interested in fetal rights or women's rights, but that they are both self-serving in some way. If more babies are born, then there may be an increase in the need for baby products, like cribs or strollers or toys, which may generate more income for the business owners selling those things. If women are allowed to abort a pregnancy any time at will, then the increase in abortions may give doctors job security. But if abortion clinics are closed, then all the healthcare professionals working at the clinic may just have to look elsewhere to find a job. Call me a cynic, but I fail to believe that the abortion debate is only based on moral philosophy.

Third, one beef that I have about the pro-choice movement is its insistence on abortion being a women's rights issue. If you take a look at the history of feminism, then you'll find that it's not necessarily a women's rights issue. This modern connection between feminism and abortion seems to obscure the fact that feminists can be anti-abortion. Not only that, the connection frames the opposing side to appear as if it's anti-feminist, and thus not egalitarian, simply because it disagrees with the legality of abortion. Furthermore, given that only women can get pregnant, and that these pro-abortion feminists argue for the WOMAN'S right to choose an abortion, one may wonder whether they ever consider the opinion of the father in the decision or disregard the father's opinion as a man's opinion may be interpreted as limiting the sexual/reproductive freedom of the woman. Either way, pro-choice proponents don't seem to consider the connection of father, mother, and child at all; all attention is on the woman and her sexual/reproductive freedom.

If people want the abortion debate is resolve, then both sides must be aware that their arguments are not directly opposed to each other in a logical manner. Sure, they may agree with statements like "Abortion should/should not be legal", and it seems like they are logically opposed to each other. But the positions' rationales are not focused on the same thing. One claims to defend women's rights often at the expense of the father's rights and unborn child's life, and the other claims to defend the unborn child's life at the expense of the mother's life and circumstances. The difference in focus of the two positions is likely the reason why the two sides just don't see eye to eye. Now, why do the two sides focus on two different things? I think it's because they have different worldviews and paradigms. In order to understand the opposing side, we have to assume the underlying worldviews or paradigms to be true, and I think this step is very difficult to do because it is so personal and experiential. We think that our own worldview is true, because it is true to us and has guided us to make sense of the world, but is it true for our neighbor as well?

What do you think? Do you think the abortion debate will resolve one day? What are your thoughts on the abortion debate?

[BuchitaBuchys]

I was going to ask a question about this, because I always wondered. Pro life people seem to think that women who get abortions are muderers, selfish, stupid, irresponsible. Ok, fine, think that, but why the fuck would you want someone like this to become a parent? If I really thought that about someone, they're the last person I'd want being pregnant.
"Adoption!" Currently, in the US, there are over 100k kids waiting to be adopted. Let's be real, the average person would not put their baby up for adoption even if they don't want it. So you're just going to have another fucked up child, who'll probably either depend on government assistance and then the "pro life" side will bitch about how they don't want to help that single mom provide for the child. And that child will be more likely to become a delinquent, and they'll probably even become killers (not all obviously), but then the "pro life" side will ironically want death penalty for these criminals.

I'm going to sound crazy, but I'm not against death.

-I'm pro hunting for food (for trophies)
-I'm pro suicide
-pro euthanasia
-pro death penalty.
-pro eating animals
-pro abortion

But, I'd still rather they be left as last resort and after all resources are exhausted prior.

[cpzpbx3]

Exactly. All of the above.

[Homey14]

"Pro life people seem to think that women who get abortions are muderers, selfish, stupid, irresponsible." Aren't they? How do you view them?

"'Adoption!' Currently, in the US, there are over 100k kids waiting to be adopted." So the better option is to have them die as opposed to having the chance to live? I don't understand this concept that if a child goes through foster care with the possibility of ending up with a negative outcome that that is somehow worse than DEATH.

"And that child will be more likely to become a delinquent, and they'll probably even become killers (not all obviously), but then the "pro life" side will ironically want death penalty for these criminals." Not all people have to be raised by a single parent who's receiving government assistance to end up like this. Plenty don't and plenty do. You deal with the outcome when it happens but until then, you have no idea how they'll turn out.

[cpzpbx3]

@Homey14 the point about the kids waiting to be adopted is that MAYBE we should worry about them first, yes? They can think. They can feel. They long for a family. But once they get older... Their chances of being adopted decrease. Especially if you throw literally a million babies into the mix. That precious five-year-old? She will never get a family if we keep throwing more babies ahead of her to be adopted. That's literally what we would be doing if everyone gave their babies up instead of aborting. Why do you care more about a fetus that has no idea it even exists than you do that little girl who feels and thinks?

[BuchitaBuchys]

@Homey14 I was in foster. And it's not as glamorous as you think.
And it's not "letting them die".
And I don't view them as irresponsible at all. They know their situation, they know they can't handle the responsibility of being a parent. They're making a difficult decision. Murderers? Sure Jan, I consider them as much murderers as teenage boys with jizz all over their hands. Stupid? No. I consider the people who judge them as stupid and sheltered af.
You didn't answer the question, if you really thought of them as this, why do you want them to be parents?

[Homey14]

First off, I never suggested that the foster care system was glamorous. I'm also sorry your experience was not a positive one. Are you suggesting though that you would rather not be living as opposed to going through that system? I don't know you but I hope your life isn't so miserable from having gone through that that you believe the better option would have been for you to not have existed to begin with. You have a lot to live for.

"And it's not 'letting them die'." Of course it is. You acknowledge their lives when they're outside the womb but when they're inside they're nothing more than something that should be able to be aborted. It's the same life inside and outside just at different stages of development. If it's wrong to kill a person at two months old outside the womb, why is right to then kill them when they're two months into development inside of the womb. It's the same exact person at a different stage of life.

[Homey14]

"They're making a difficult decision." I'm saying they shouldn't have the right to make that decision. There should be no right to decide to abort another person's life. Seriously, if it's not a life, what makes the decision so difficult?

"Murderers? Sure Jan, I consider them as much murderers as teenage boys with jizz all over their hands." I assume you're comparing sperm to an embryo. Not a valid comparison. Sperm may be living but it is not a human life. It's a part of the total element that makes up a human being and on its own nothing will come of it. As you described it will be deposited out of the male's body. Same thing with the egg from a woman. On it's own it's just a cell and nothing more. When the two come together to form a zygote and later an embryo, then it has all the elements to qualify as a human being. A baby latches on to its mother's breast for nourishment to grow the same way an embryo latches onto the uterine wall in order to grow and receive nourishment.

[Homey14]

"Stupid? No. I consider the people who judge them as stupid and sheltered af." Well I don't think I'm stupid nor do I think I'm sheltered but you're entitled to your opinion. The stupid part that I see is that people have sex and seem to not realize that there's the possibility that they could get pregnant. You'd think after seeing happen so often to other people that folks wouldn't the mindset that says "That will never happen to me!"

"You didn't answer the question, if you really thought of them as this, why do you want them to be parents?" I think you miss my point. I'm concerned about the life inside of that woman's womb and letting it get the chance to live. Any chastisement I have of the mother's come from the fact that they have the choice to live the way they want, make a decision that results in them getting pregnant, and then instead of giving the child a chance to live they decide to abort them. I want the child to live more than I want them to be parents.

[Homey14]

@cpzpbx3 Why does it have to be an either or? Why do you have to sacrifice the fetus in order for the 5 year old to have a better outcome? I don't want either to suffer. If you abort them while they're a fetus they'll never even get a chance to make it to 5!! Besides if it's so hopeless and it's so hard for them to get adopted after a certain age then it really doesn't matter if there's a million babies before them because nobody would want them anyway.

"Why do you care more about a fetus that has no idea it even exists than you do that little girl who feels and thinks?" I don't. I care about both equally. I care about both being able to live and be raised by parents who love them. Most of all though I want them to experience life the same way you and I have, with ups and downs, but ultimately with a chance to live.

[BuchitaBuchys]

@Homey14 you're still going on? I'm all for abortion, euthanasia, death penalty, etc and always will be. A woman decides what she wants with her body, for the first trimester. I don't care if she has a "free abortion after 10th procedure" punch card. It's merely a clump of cells at that point.
I'd honestly rather poor people not have babies because we grow up to be fucked up. Yes, I come from extreme poverty. We're more likely to be sexually abused which I have, physically abused which I have, emotionally abused again I have, neglected which I have, and it's all these politicians who the same ones vote against abortions that vote against our interests. I know, you think my parents are horrible and they need to stop being lazy and not depend on the government. Well, it's not them that suffer. It's US. We literally had to eat dog food to survive because we'd gone days without food. So no, it's not so glamorous to be in foster to foster home. The events leading up to foster are not

[BuchitaBuchys]

@Homey14 glamorous the events that lead to us going to foster care. Watching your dad nearly stab your mother to death in front of you at the age of 4.

So no. Until they can prove they will fully help and support the 100k children in need, then I don't care about abortions. I think they serve a better purpose.

But as I said, the same politicians who want abortion banned, are the same who call us lazy and stupid and think of us as worthless leeches of the system once we are born.

That's why I think those against abortions are sheltered af. You wouldn't last a day faced with real issues. You have no idea what it is to truly protect life. Pro life people are selfish and have no clue what it is to be in situations with your back against the wall.

[cpzpbx3]

@Homey14 breastfeeding cannot be compared to pregnancy. A baby "attaches" to a breast the same way you do a cheeseburger. However, when it attaches to the uterine wall, it will die if that connection is broken before it is viable. Will a baby die if it becomes detached from the breast? No. Humans have actually devised a way to substitute for breastmilk. But there is no substitute for a womb, is there? An embryo at 8 weeks gestation cannot be compared to an 8 week old infant.

[cpzpbx3]

@Homey14 If there was a five-year-old on one side of a burning building, and a petri dish filled with live embryos on the other, which would you save before the building collapsed if you only had time to go after one? Or, if you think you have time to save both, which do you grab first?

[ThatJarHead]

As far as I go abortion has a purpose in society. If the child is going to have a life of desperation and poverty why bring the child into the world if it's going to have a poor quality of life? I think it should stay but be regulated as to when you should and should not be able to during the pregnancy. A fetus has no autonomy and can not be classified as a human being in the eyes of the law. A person is by definition a being who can recognize and accept its own consciousness, process complex emotions, and have the capacity for empathy for other living beings. A fetus can do none of this and is therefore not a person. However, abortion should be allowed but after pre-natal development when the child's gender has been decided in the womb or when the brain has started development is the moment that thought processes start and the child can be considered a Human Being. Basically what I say is the argument is stupid and pointless and people should accept that it's better to not bring a life to being than to bring a child into this world and have the child live in poverty or constant wonder of who their birth parents are. That's my say.

[cpzpbx3]

Say it louder for the people in the back!

[jacquesvol]

Besides, there's an inverse correlation between criminality levels and access to abortion.

[jacquesvol]

@cpzpbx3
scholar.harvard.edu/.../99_0927_crimerate_bw.pdf

[Anonymous]

1. This is a very strong point you bring up. Each side is arguing completely different things, so there is no way to find a compromise. I am pro-choice, but personally against abortions.
2. I'm not sure that the examples you gave here are true. Doctors don't need abortions for job security; people will always be sick so there will always be doctors. Plus, more births means more need for OBGYN/doctors. And for baby products, I don't think that's what the pro-lifers are concerned about, because they would rather a baby be born into a severely poor family (where they can't afford a bunch of stuff) rather than be aborted. They would rather a baby go to an orphanage/foster care, again where there isn't a lot of money. So I dont think that's what motivates the pro-lifers.
3. Feminism says you are allowed to be against abortions, just that it's not fair for you to take that right away from others. And the reason it's the woman's choice is because it's the woman who would be carrying the fetus for 9 months. That does a lot to your body. My friend is 8 months pregnant and she HAS to go to the Dr. once a week to get checked. That's a lot of time, and a lot of money (for people without health care). A guy does not have to deal with that.
4. Again you're right with the two different arguments. I don't think there ever will be a resolution. The Supreme Court case legalizing abortion could have been a resolution (at least in the US) but people who disagreed with that of course continued to fight it. People against abortions are trying to shut down women's health centers in order to suppress access to abortions, even though they are legal. And there are people who claim to be "pro-life" that go shoot up abortion clinics because they disagree with it (they can't really be true pro-lifers if they go kill people). And even if some years from now the Supreme Court decision is overturned and abortion does become illegal, again that wouldn't stop people who are pro-choice, they would fight to get the right to choose back. I think that people just feel too strongly about the right to choose or a fetus' right to life, and I don't think they will stop fighting for those beliefs.
Thanks for a thought out, non polarizing conversation! It's nice to see someone on this site actually being thoughtful rather than just spewing their views without considering the other side.

[Spiorad_Aisce]

Yeah I definitely see where you are going the views are too polarised and set in stone, the middle ground or areas of compromise possibilities are not explored.
My own view is that blanket laws don't work, has there ever being a wording of a blanket law that it wouldn't take a pro lifer or a pro choicer two seconds to come up with a nightmare scenario that no one wants.
I am neither pro life or pro choice in the classic sense but I think there should be a change in society that accepts women being pregnant, having babies then putting them up for adoption and requests for terminations can be assessed maybe by medical, psychological and possibly legal people on a case by case basis with the rights of all the foetus, mother and father consulted in absolute privacy.
I think the intent of the law in Ireland is fairly close to my views (now there is a whole different debate about the wording and how it can be abused). I think I am right in saying this is it with a few small changes from me. Terminations allowed in (My changes in brackets)
(1) The foetus no longer viable (if foetus born quality of life will be so low for its lifespan it would be a mercy to terminate - On assessment)
(2) The life of the mother is threatened full stop no arguments with mother's consent.
(2a) The nightmare clause that is ruffling pro lifers' if the mother threatens suicide (I think it was intended for pregnant victims of incest and rape to use this clause to get around legalities after assessment) - I would leave this clause stand as intended where any suicide claim is assessed as I say in private not in the public arena.
The nightmare for us (Ireland) is that it is part of the constitution so impossibly hard to legislate for.

[myTake Owner]

It's actually fetus. Foetus may seem correct, but really it's a hypercorrection of the Latin.

[Spiorad_Aisce]

That is my new thing that I have learned today.

[pogicraft]

Unfortunately I have to side with the pro-life people. Pro-choice people just take it too far... they frame abortion as quick and easy and at times it actually sounds like a fun thing that conservatives are preventing them from partaking in. No, abortion is not quick and easy and fun and you can't just get pregnant again if you change your mind (I mean if you have a kid pass away in a tragedy, do you think you could just replace him/her? no, the next kid will always be different in one way or another). It should not be a method to clean up your mistakes and it shouldn't be a way to avoid responsibility. You go into an abortion clinic and they ask you if you've considered terminating the pregnancy as if nobody has ever heard of abortion before. And again, they want to make it quick and easy and envision a clinic at every corner... seriously what's wrong with having only one or two in a texas town or having to drive to a bigger city to have it done? Should abortion require less aforethought than any other medical procedure?

The pro-life people are deep in their beliefs (as far as I know that's what drives them). The pro-choice people are just money grubbing liars. Abortion clinics themselves are always pro-choice... why? because its a business. And democrats are always pro-choice (as a party) why? because killing fetuses born into bad conditions cuts down on crime, poverty, and the cost of welfare programs, but that would disproportionately target minority urban populations (who in turn are often deeply religious) and that would be racist. So they sugarcoat it and call it planned parenthood and try to make it easy for you to limit your household size, regardless of economic condition so that your mistakes don't become society's burden.

[cpzpbx3]

Abortion is not a "fun thing" and I've never heard anybody say it is. It is, however, vital to society for a multitude of reasons--the first of which involving the hundreds of thousands awaiting adoption that we should worry about first, before we cram a million babies per year ahead of them in line.

[pogicraft]

@cpzpbx3 but thats the point of the pro-lifers... you can't just take it upon yourself to kill someone just because they become inconvenient to you. What about all those people in a vegetative state that's draining resources keeping them alive? What about all those homeless people? Or anyone else with nothing of value to add to society?

Abortion at best should be something that's a rare last resort. But seriously the way they fight and argue against the regulations in conservative states you'd think they were protesting against a 9PM curfew for women. I mean you think about how hard it is for people who do want kids to get pregnant and you will understand why I doubt a million women have to get an abortion each year because they were raped or they weren't healthy enough to survive childbirth.

But no, pro-life people trivialize it & dehumanize it & rationalize it to help society (and make some money of course) Honestly, conservatives rather these orphans starve to a natural death.

[pogicraft]

@cpzpbx3 I wonder if the trauma experienced by some women after an abortion is some kind of side effect or simply social guilt... but we won't ever know because all the research on abortion is one sided.

[cpzpbx3]

Killing a homeless person is not the same as having an abortion, because a homeless person is sentient. A fetus is not.

[pogicraft]

@cpzpbx3 I don't see what sentience has to do with anything. In both cases we can justify that we're saving them from a lifetime of misery and make it completely painless. There are just parts of the human experience that I don't feel comfortable artificially inducing, even if itd be best for society as a whole. Things like love, family, and life should occur naturally and randomly -- otherwise we should have government matching systems to choose a mate most compatible with you, change genes in your kids to ensure survival, and pair you up with parents that will best nurture your talents. In fact, why not make suicide cleaner by having medical facilities carry it out? Why deal with a messy attempt at home when you can go see a registered professional? Taking the magic out of life and making it a calculated scientific move just... makes life meaningless.

[jacquesvol]

@pogicraft in my opinion it's mainly 'social guilt'. They hear and read everywere that they should br depressive after an abortion and end up believing it. A self fulfilling prophecy.

[John_Doesnt]

It's not really a debate of our time because abortions have been taking place since ancient times (https://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/History_of_abortion).
It has never been completely illegal to have an abortion in human history because the women who really want one will always find a way to get one. Whether they get an abortion safely or die trying, the women will get an abortion if they truly need it.
Now obviously the fetus dies either way, but we also have to choose whether the woman is safe and lives or dies. Which is why abortion should be made legal: not because it's right or wrong (it's nobody's place to decide on the morality of each individual) but because it makes life safer for the women involved.
Women will always have abortions and deciding on whether or not society should stop having them is ludicrous. If you don't like abortions then don't have one. What we're really deciding is if we want women to have a safe option of terminating a pregnancy as opposed to some dangerous back alley surgery.

[jacquesvol]

It was legal until the beginning of the 19th century. Then they had two reasons:
-Black children could be sold as slaves.
-Whites were afraid to be outnumbered by colored people.

[jacquesvol]

And they made it illegal.

[evenlift]

There is a correct answer. A woman should be allowed to have an abortion, unless she has agreed a contract not to do so. A father should be allowed to refuse financial and other parental responsibilities for a child, unless he has agreed a contract to take those responsibilities. Abortion should not be tax-financed. In other words, the correct position is this: "Her body, her choice His body, his choice."

As for what will happen, the abortion-rights movement is losing. The feminists are doing a terrible job at leading the movement. They are far more passionate about violating the rights of fathers, tax-payers and health-care workers, than they are about protecting the rights of mothers. But, the fundamental basis of this losing struggle is the prevailing moral code of altruism, with which the right of abortion is incompatible. That said, I doubt that abortion will ever be made totally illegal. However, between the current legal situation and a total ban, there is a long way for things to become much worse.

[Northeast106]

I think you captured exactly how the two camps feel about it, and how it is a deeper issue that revolves around world view and perspective. Anti-abortionists view themselves as protecting an innocent life that can not defend itself, the pro-choice camp sees itself as empowering women and giving them more control over their own bodies.

There are also business and government interests involved in all of this. Abortion is seen by the government as an effective way of reducing the population, or preventing births of children to low income families. This reduces the burden on social welfare and benefits. It's more cost efficient to pay for one abortion, than for 18 years of food stamps, wic, health insurance, section 8, etc. On the flip side, declining populations also threaten government programs such as social security and medicare. The young need to substantially outnumber the elderly, that way the programs are profitable, instead of a loss. If the elderly to young ratio gets to high, these social programs become unsustainable or infeasible without one of two corrections, either benefits are cut, retirement age is increased, or taxation is increased. Germany and Japan have been facing the problem of a declining population, and have handled it in very different ways. Germany saw refugees as a potential solution, Japan feels that the security threat is too great, and other measures primarily by government and central banking management should be taken. My point is that people not having enough children becomes a problem for an economy as a whole. Then again, overpopulation produces just as many and as serious problems. More people means more consumption and more waste. It's difficult to manage a population with an exponential growth that never ceases, like India or China. Each of these countries holds over a billion people., resulting in China's one child law.

[Anonymous]

Before I say anything... this is my opinion, and I get that people will disagree.

I think it should be legal. Yes, I believe it's a woman's right. Solely a woman's right? No, I think their partner should get a say. But when it's split down the middle, what do you do? I hate to say it, but I side more with the woman carrying the child. and what are their arguments?

Then there's the argument of giving it up for adoption. Not all of those kids get adopted as babies. And staying in the system without parents isn't good. Babies need to be touched, and unless there's 1 worker to every 2 or 3 kids constantly, you're not going to get that. There's a lot more that factors in there, but hopefully you get what I'm saying. More than 60% stay for at least 2-3 years. 20% spend 5 or more years in the system. Only 2% of americans have adopted kids. Then, there's the preference. Americans prefer white, baby girls over all other genders, ages, and races. That isn't fair.

Then, the health of the mother. No, it isn't always safe. Especially later in the pregnancy. But I suppose she knows that, and that's on her (similar to those who smoke, drink and drive, etc). However, I do think there should be a point where it's "too late".

Next. Some say it should only be for women who are at risk (aka will possibly die if they have the baby), or are raped. In a perfect world, sure. But how do you control that (especially the rape aspect)? Also, what if the family can't financially support the child? You could say they should've been safer, but Sex Ed in the US is awful. Many in the bible belt don't know any better, since they're only taught abstinence.

There's so many more points to this, but these are just some of the main ones for me.

[jacquesvol]

IF their partner should get a say he should say so before having sex.

[Anonymous]

I understand why other's are against abortion but if a mom and dad don't want their child wouldn't that mean that the child is more likely to live a life of neglect, abuse, or abandonment. What if they child will have a bad life because the parents they were born to didn't want him in the first place nor have the means to care for them? Personally if I were an unborn fetus I'd rather be sent to heaven than live a life of neglect, abuse, or even abandonment. In rare cases I've heard of moms tossing their newborns out the hospital window to get rid of them or dispatching the baby them self. Now I'm abstinent and I refuse to have sex until I'm ready to be a dad and the mother is ready to be a mom but others are not so careful. I believe having more mouths to feed would put a burden on a lot of things. The baby is also put out of their misery in a humane way which is why I hate it when people compare it to forms of animal cruelty when the creature has to suffer. Overall, my beliefs are based on science and facts but I'm not a true liberal because I also support gun ownership, the death penalty, respect and honor soldiers, and am for personal responsibility and self-defense.

[Chief16]

There's nothing to debate,
A government should have no say in a person's personal life. At the same time, a woman's decision is her own, and if society condemns her for it, that's a brunt she needs to be prepared to bear. There are consequences, her choice is her business, what society does, is its own business.

[skeptic007]

here's my question what if the man wants the kid
but the women doesn't

but than there's another side to things what if she was raped and got pregnant
should she get the abortion

there's a few other scenarios, so it's not an easy topic cause it depends on the situation

[bluenose1872]

It shouldn't be a legal issue just a morale one. Would you shoot a person if they made that legal? I'd hope not. Are we saying that man's base instincts are only held in check by fear of consequences? I'm thinking probably these days. Take away consequences for a day and you'll have anarchy. Deep down everybody is repressed by society. That's the only reason for it. A form of control. This world is dog eat dog. People deep down are all scum led by base desires. Why shouldn't they murder their kids? Sounds about right for this low down species that we are. Broad is the path and easy is the way that leads to destruction and many walk it.

[Rainie_]

@skeptic007 if the man wants the kid but the woman doesn't then she shouldn't have to go through 9 months of pregnancy and health problems to give birth for him... That's almost like surrogacy but completely unpaid for and unwanted.

[skeptic007]

@Rainie_
how about this situation which has happened plenty of times
she gets the abortion, and the husband kills her
think about what you say its not an easy subject or easy decision
its there baby not her baby they made it together

now on the rape subject I would understand, but talking about 2 people that agreed to have sex then she gets pregnant, that's no her and him

[skeptic007]

@bluenose1872
I wanna shot a lot of people I don't do it cause of GOD
not cause of the law, I've broken the law hundreds of times, most laws here in the U. S are worthless and pointless

see too you life is trash and a bunch of chemicals put together
too me GOD made them and they have a purpose, but cause of sin they do all these horrible things

look If I really believed in the evolutionary thought process I'd be the next hitler to figure out how to cleanse the world of the weaker species lol hitler was a crazy faggot thank GOD he is dead

[SunsetStar]

The trouble is to pro-life people it's not just "her own" decision. It's a decision she makes about whether another person lives or dies.

[M_A_X]

@bluenose1872 lol Come on now, blue. We all know that if shooting people became legal it would instantly turn into the fucking wild west out there.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sT9hj8NsJv8

[justagirl5]

Abortion is gonna happen whether it's legal or not. TBH it's a religious issue because most who oppose it are religious (myself included). I personally don't care what others do or don't do and there's no use trying to control people by making certain things illegal because they're gonna do it anyway... arguably more because everyone wants what's forbidden. There will always be ways for people to get around following the law. Anyway I'm personally pro life for myself but I'm pro choice for others because we all have free will to do whatever the hell we want. Plus it's better to have a safe option than an unsafe illegal option. I think people just need to stop trying to control choices others make. We're all adults who are capable of thinking for ourselves

[dragonlance5]

Yep "pro-life" people think they're defending the rights of unborn children. Unfortunately most pro-choicers don't see the fetus as a child that deserves rights. It is extremely debatable when you should call the fetus a "human" and give it basic human rights. Should it get them when its born? When the brain starts to develop? Unfortunately we can't exactly pinpoint when something gains a consciousness or a "soul" which is generally when most people would call it human. So effectively "pro-lifers" are taking their own beliefs on when something becomes human and forcing everyone to accept it. That's a breach of the first Amendment so abortion has to be legal. End of debate.

[QuestionMan]

I wrote a myTake criticizing both the pro-life and pro-choice sides and offering my solution.
www.girlsaskguys.com/.../a26772-abortion-is-not-a-black-white-issue

In short as much as I hate the concept of abortion, it needs to be available for those that need it as a result of rape or other unfortunate circumstances.
The best ways to lower the abortion rates is through sex ed and teaching women to defend themselves. That way there will be less unwanted pregnancies.

[bluenose1872]

I'll never understand people who justify killing a kid. Fuck rights. The kid has rights to life. If you don't want kids then stop opening your legs or use protection. Since when is murder justifiable. Seems like anything can fall off the taboo list in this fucked up world if it is debated enough. It's so common people become numb to the consequences. It's intentional if you ask me. Is society taking people backwards to be animals instead of enlightened beings. Life is all that matters. Why are we debating ending it?

[KRIEL55]

there are so many reasons to abort. the main one is rape. no way in hell would i raise a baby of a rapist. also condoms and birth control pills dont always work. i've never been pregnant but i thought i was at one point and i did nott want a kid so i was planning to have an abortion as soon as possible. dont start saying that i shouldn't be having sex if im not ready for a kid that is the main argument towards women but we are human, just like men we have sexual urges and i've only had sex with a couple of guys, always using protection but one time the condom broke. im not in love with the idea of abortion but i think if its done right away, when the baby hasn't developed yet, its not a bad thing. and another argument i often hear is that what if the man wants to keep it, why does the woman have all the power? well is the man going to walk around in pain for 9 months throwing up and feeling sick all the time just to get something he didn't even want in the end? nope. its our bodies, our

[KRIEL55]

choices. if a woman doesn't want a baby and gets pregnant by accident (or by force) she should have the right to make whatever decision she wants.

[bluenose1872]

@KRIEL55 yeah I suppose if I decide I don't like somebody in future I can just end their life as well. Fuck it, the populations overbearing anyway. It's not my rules. I just stick to what I believe. I'm just saying you better God isn't real. He doesn't sound like he can be swayed by debate. Both of my kids were accidents. The pill never worked. I was about to go work abroad and live the life I wanted. She asked should we abort it. No chance I said. We lay down and made it. It's our responsibility. I'm not murdering my own kid. Society wipes everybodies backsides these days. Like spoiled children we want everything to suit our demands. There comes a time when you've got to face your in the shit and deal with your responsibilities. That baby you'd so casually kill will be a person one day, it'll think, breath, work, might even be famous and change the world. But no, we'll never know because some people can just casually end life coz it doesn't suit their lifestyles. God forgive them

[KRIEL55]

ending a grown persons life and killing someone who is barely even developed and doesn't even have a life are 2 completely different things. and good for you, im glad you were with someone who you decided to stay with for the rest of your life. i hope to find someone i love that much someday too but that one time i thought i was pregnant, it just was nott happening. i was with him for a while but as soon as that happened, i realized i do not want to be with him and broke up with him after. and like i said before, who in their right mind would want to keep a baby of a rapist. not only is it involuntary sex, not only is it an accident, that kid would forever remind his mother about the tragic incident and make her a single mom making things twice as hard.

[AperolSpritz]

It's a very very difficult thing for a man to understand, and I'm not saying that to be sexist, and biology is how it is.
My ex boyfriend and I were in the exact same circumstances when I got pregnant with my daughter. He had a job offer overseas and he took it. That was his decision.
I made the decision to have my daughter and it's the best decision I ever made. I love that girl to the ends of the earth. But I also had to give up my own travel plans, and my university place, and pretty much everything else that was going on in my life at that time.
I don't regret it, but it's hard. It's hard to deal with and it's hard to cope with at times.
Being a parent is the best thing anyone will ever do, but it's also the most exhausting. My daughter is three, and I still feel like I'm finding my feet.

When I got pregnant last year, I knew, at that time that I didn't have it in me to not only look after look after two kids on my own, but...

[AperolSpritz]

... to possibly go through everything I'd been through with my daughter's dad all over again.
I'm not talking about what happened when he left, I'm talking about what happened when he came back. We're still going through that.

Guys can choose how involved with their kids they are, the sacrifices are not the same. You can pretty much come and go as you please. Your life is as affected as you want it to be.
You get to choose your responsibilities.

A man walks out on a child's life, people shrug it off as him not being ready , all the while, we are the ones left to pick up the pieces whilst being looked down on by society.
If a woman makes the decision not to parent a child or another child, it's a whole different kettle of fish. We're the scum of the earth.

Not one single person standing back judging knows what it's like to be there.

[bluenose1872]

@AperolSpritz for a man it should be a moral decision not a practical one. Any clown who runs away isn't worth a fuck anyway. My son is 3 as well. He's like a bloody spider. Never stops climbing over your head and jumping about. He's great. For me it didn't matter that I could, it was just never an option. I wanted to see them grow up and I wanted them to know me. The problem in today's world is young people trading standards and morals for fashion and trends. A person with no moral fibre Is like a cardboard cut out of a human being. Useless to everybody. I get the argument, I'm not so cynical but I just can't ever see any justification for killing a kid. I'd rather live in hell for the rest of my life than do that

[Kinstrome]

I think it's an incredibly complicated issue, and I have a hard time believing that some people find the answer "obvious" one way or the other.

While I lean more pro-choice (provided the fetus isn't close to birth), I do find some of the pro-choice arguments to be dangerously similar to eugenics, and I think that following their line of thinking could be disastrous. Saying that a fetus's life "won't be worth living" and giving that person a right to terminate that life means that you could just as easily give that right to a suicidal person; after all, it is the suicidal person's own body over which they are making a decision.

[jacquesvol]

What an original subject! We never discussed that on G@G!
Look:

https://www.girlsaskguys.com/search?q=abortion&st=0
https://www.girlsaskguys.com/search?q=pro+life&st=0
www.girlsaskguys.com/search?q=pro+choice&st=0
www.girlsaskguys.com/search?q=Roe+vs+Wade&st=0

[MondaysAngel]

It's a hot topic subject, of course it's gonna be discussed before.

[jacquesvol]

Why did you go anonymous to ask this?

laptopginger.files.wordpress.com/.../pro-choice.jpg
bioethicstoday.files.wordpress.com/.../...ings.jpg
www.slate.com/.../...jpg.CROP.rectangle3-large.jpg

[jacquesvol]

https://i66.tinypic.com/70xe1t_th.jpg

Even if Roe vs Wade is overturned some day, there will STILL be abortions.
But they'll happen on a kitchen table in a shed , by some moonlighting midwife using a rusty coat hanger.

That's the way it happens in South America or Poland ao countries where abortion is outlawed.
Thus the discussion is NOT "abortions or no abortions".

The REAL discussion is "abortions in good circumstances without risk" or "high risk abortions with many victims".

[jacquesvol]

The real discussion is abortions without risk for the rich and high risk abortions for those who can't pay the plane to Europe or Cuba.

[MondaysAngel]

@jacquesvol

I'm not the anon that asked this question wtf xD

[MondaysAngel]

@jacquesvol posted this article rather

[myTake Owner]

I am the anonymous user. I always go anon for every myTake I write. I'm a very private person. I don't like associating articles to one identifier, and I also have different usernames on different websites, making it extremely difficult to find the originator unless you have my email address or IP address or other unique identifier.

[TheSpartan]

He's a total doofus; don't pay attention to him.

My guess is that he's actually 16-years-old.

[jacquesvol]

@TheSpartan

https://i.imgur.com/Y87CE8i.jpg

[TheSpartan]

You just don't offer any real arguments about anything. I usually offer an argument, and then you start criticizing the GOP. You don't make any sense, man.

[jacquesvol]

@MondaysAngel
I didn't intent it for you: I tried to post under my answer but the site software put it there.
I usually use the @ when replying to someone, just because the software doesn't always send my answer where I expect it.

[jacquesvol]

@MondaysAngel See where this ended...

[jacquesvol]

Almost every week (often on Thursdays) some Anonymous starts the subject for the weekend.
Always an Anonymous.

[fenixx0083]

I don't like the idea of abortion, but it's a religious issue... Religious people will never ever admit it, but it *is* for their religion that abortion feels wrong, and what's more: a lot of religious people don't see the importance of separation and church and state (even the founding fathers, most of whom were ordained ministers understood that people should be able to have whatever religious views they chose, and not have others' religious views forced on them), so... you just can't reason with these people...

Again: *not* a fan of abortion, I just don't feel that it affects society in any way that destabilizes or otherwise tangibly harms society, and so the government/society should stay out of it...

[jacquesvol]

@fenixx0083 it's a religious issue indeed Some priests tell people that the soul is created by a deity at conception. And that's where the discussion starts. The Bible mentions many children getting killed on god's command, even by god himself. The Bible mentions compulsory abortion too. Numbers 5:11-21
www.biblegateway.com/.../?search=Numbers%205:11-21
https://oi64.tinypic.com/31277f7.jpg

The Biblical God is NOT pro-life, he advocates child murder, infanticide, child abuse and abortion.

[jacquesvol]

Numbers 5:21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to become a curse[b] among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. https://biblehub.com/numbers/5-21.htm

[fenixx0083]

Well alrighty then... @jacquesvol

[jacquesvol]

Till the early 19th century the church tolerated abortion till 'quickening', often even later. Then mentality changed:
-Black slave girls should not abort because a new slave could be sold.
-White women should not abort because whites feared loosing their numerical majority.

[jacquesvol]

@fenixx0083

[M_A_X]

See, all I'm saying is, if I was a woman, and I was going to die giving birth, and there was a high chance that the baby wouldn't even live anyway, it would be stupid and cruel to force me to have the baby.

Do I think abortion is always justified in that way? Hell no, but making it illegal just seems like a dick move to anybody who is caught in circumstances like that

[jacquesvol]

@M_A_X Making it illegal doesn't make it disappear. It merely creates two categories of abortion:
*- Poor people get a risky one close by on a kitchen table , by a moonlighting midwife.
*-Rich people get a safe one in a foreign clinic by a doctor.

[Anonymous]

Well, 48 hours after Conception your DNA is formed as far a science is concerned they consider life anything with DNA. People get abortions because they aren't using protection, this whole rape argument is pretty much void in first world countries, cause if women are getting abortion for being raped that nearly 50,000 abortions in the u. s 130,000 in England than men are rapist and should be in jail. thing is male birth control is coming out and women will have theirs and then their is condoms. Abortion argument will really be void, cause their will too many ways to prevent pregnancy, keep in mind it's a miracle to get pregnant Anywya when a woman's egg send off ant sperm plasma stuff.

[cpzpbx3]

Your DNA is determined AT conception, not 48 hours after.

Abortion needs to exist. Do you want women to raise babies they don't want and can't afford? I don't. And I don't want a million extra babies being shoved into the overloaded foster care system, either. Yes, people are stupid and careless. But is it worth the societal impact to "punish" them (more so the child) by forcing them to carry out a pregnancy they don't want? I fail to see a benefit to outlawing abortion. Its existence benefits everyone, whether you've ever personally had one or not.

[Opinion Owner]

@cpzpbx3 actually your chromosomes are everything else I. e hair color, eye color isn't. Second, abortion is literally for the irresponsible. And they are stupid, We don't have room for the stupid anymore. Science is moving to perfect humankind , so if your irresponsible ( which is a flaw) we don't need you. Murder is murder in the womb or out, so I guess we can be like the Nazis and get rid of the weak links

[cpzpbx3]

So, using your logic, do you really want these irresponsible people reproducing to begin with? I mean, stupid people cranking out babies isn't exactly the best way to cut out the weak links, is it?

[Opinion Owner]

@cpzpbx3 well, the Nazis sterilized the mentally I'll those who suffered from depression, anxiety..
Etc they sterilized the idiots and so many more. I think science and society will very much move into that mind set.

[cpzpbx3]

I'm not talking about mandated sterilization. Abortion is an individual choice. If a woman believes she is not fit to be a mother, then she probably isn't. So if she makes the choice to end her pregnancy, it is likely for the best. People who aren't smart enough to use birth control are usually the ones having abortions, anyway. No one said to MAKE them abort--but if it's their choice, it's probably a good one. See the difference?

[Homey14]

Simply put, abortion should be illegal in every circumstance with the possible exception of the life of the mother. I genuinely want to know from people why they are so adamant about this position and advocate for something so barbaric. I respect everyone's right to believe what they want but that doesn't mean that I agree with them or that those beliefs should be put into practice. No woman or man should have the right to choose whether or not the life inside a woman's body should be preserved or killed. Period. I mean isn't that common sense? How can anyone argue against this?

[cpzpbx3]

Here's how:
There are over 100,000 children currently in the foster care system awaiting adoption. Last year, over 1 million abortions were performed.
We already have children that are here, alive, sentient, and unwanted. It just doesn't make sense to increase their numbers tenfold every year. Do you really want people to either be forced to raise babies they don't want and/or can't afford, or to give them to the system where they may live out their days without a loving home? Why put the unborn above the needs of the unwanted children who are already here?

We should obviously work to decrease abortions by preventing unwanted pregnancies, but the societal need for abortion will always be there, like it or not.

[jacquesvol]

@Homey14
Even if Roe vs Wade is overturned some day, there will STILL be abortions.
But they'll happen on a kitchen table in a shed , by some moonlighting midwife using a rusty coat hanger.
That's the way it happens in South America or Poland ao countries where abortion is outlawed.
Thus the discussion is NOT "abortions or no abortions".
The REAL discussion is "abortions in good circumstances without risk" or "high risk abortions with many victims".
The real discussion is abortions without risk for the rich and high risk abortions for those who can't pay the plane to Europe or Cuba.

[jacquesvol]

@cpzpbx3

[jacquesvol]

@cpzpbx3 Decreasing the number of abortions by providing BC is what Planned Parenthood does but defunding any form of BC seems to be a conservative priority these times. So is closing down the organisation that prevents WAY more abortions than it is accused of permitting.
Prolife should raise funds for PP.

[cpzpbx3]

@jacquesvol agreed. Sometimes I don't even think they realize how hypocritical their arguments are.

[Homey14]

@cpzpbx3 "Do you really want people to either be forced to raise babies they don't want and/or can't afford, or to give them to the system where they may live out their days without a loving home?" Ask that to every child living in foster care, who was given up for adoption, or who's parent's wanted them but couldn't afford them. My mother was in now way a rich woman and arguably might not have been able to afford me. Either way she did what she had to do to raise and provide for me. You're speaking on behalf of every one of those children and making the case that they would be better off dead than in those situations. What? How can you speak for them? At least be pro- choice about that and give them the choice to live or die. It's THEIR LIVES we're talking about!!

[Homey14]

@jacquesvol "Even if Roe vs Wade is overturned some day, there will STILL be abortions." Understandable. That's with every outlawed thing though. Murder is illegal yet murder still happens. Theft is illegal yet theft still happens. Rape is illegal yet rape still happens. Domestic violence is illegal yet domestic violence still happens. You would never argue (at least I hope not) that these activities should be legalized because they happen in spite of the law, would you? Of course these things still happen but not in the numbers they would if they were legal. In the case that someone violates the law, that person is then punished for it. That's what the law is there for. To prevent people from committing wrongs, to penalize those that have committed wrong, and provide justice for those that have been wronged. Would I include abortion in that? Yes I would.

[Homey14]

@jacquesvol "Decreasing the number of abortions by providing BC is what Planned Parenthood does but defunding any form of BC seems to be a conservative priority these times. So is closing down the organisation that prevents WAY more abortions than it is accused of permitting" There are many other organizations that offer birth control. Go to your local Target, Walmart, or CVS and you can pick up some condoms fairly cheap. The pill? Again there are other orgs that will provide you with that. Besides, the best birth control is to not have sex. The government shouldn't have to subsidize people personal choices.

[cpzpbx3]

Ask a child that's here now, awaiting adoption... Becoming less and less "adoptable" with each day that passes... ask that child how they feel about a million extra babies being put ahead of her in line to be adopted. Babies that wouldn't have existed and wouldn't have known the difference either way until their mothers were forced to birth them and put them into the system.

I just think we should worry about actual children before we worry about potential babies who don't yet even have any awareness of their own existence. The born child knows.

If there was a petri dish full of live embryos on one side of a burning building, and a toddler on the other--which one would you save if you only had time to grab one? If you choose the toddler, then you understand the distinction I'm talking about above. If you choose the embryos, then I don't know what to tell you, but you're not a stable person.

[Homey14]

@cpzpbx3 "Ask a child that's here now, awaiting adoption... Becoming less and less "adoptable" with each day that passes... ask that child how they feel about a million extra babies being put ahead of her in line to be adopted." Are suggesting that those children will be for the millions of other babies being aborted instead? Considering that they were in that position and that but by the grace of God it could have been them who was aborted, I don't think they would support that. What do I know though?

Madam, you say that the child in the womb is not a child yet you admit that the abortions performed prevent 1million children from coming into the world. I'm curious if that's not a human being at its first stage of life what is it? I'm going to answer your petri dish question (you asked me it on another person's opinion further down on the page so I will get to it) but I'd like you to answer my question first.

[cpzpbx3]

I don't think a sperm is a child, but making sure it doesn't connect with an egg prevents it's potential to become one. A seed is not a tree. An egg is not a chicken. Everything goes through stages. Something at an early stage being halted before it progresses is "preventative" in nature. I'm not sure what else you would like me to call it.

[Mustachekitteh]

Main thing people should think about, if you made abortion illegal. Some women will become so desperate to get an abortion, they will find extremely dangerous ways of doing it. Making it illegal is going to end up with women dying from desperation of getting an abortion any way they can.

[TKasap]

Agreed 100% I've heard some women even tossed their newborn baby out the hospital window too or decided to dispatch it them self in some way if they had an abortion that wouldn't happened.